Latest news with #CoastalAct
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Sable Offshore Corp. (SOC) Went Down On Wednesday
We recently published a list of . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Sable Offshore Corp. (NYSE:SOC) stands against other worst-performing stocks. Sable Offshore saw its share prices decrease by 15.31 percent on Wednesday to end at $27.89 apiece after the California Coastal Commission secured a preliminary injunction against the company's pipeline repair and maintenance activities within the coastal zone of Santa Barbara County. The news raised concerns about project delays and additional costs for Sable Offshore Corp. (NYSE:SOC) anew. Aerial view of an industrial landscape showing the scale of oil and gas operations. The legal proceedings stemmed from claims that the company did not secure necessary coastal development permits for the ongoing repair and maintenance on the Las Flores oil facility, which was ordered shut in 2015 following an oil spill from a ruptured pipeline that released 450,000 gallons of oil near Refugio State Beach. The injunction halts Sable Offshore Corp. (NYSE:SOC) from continuing works for the Las Flores facility until it secures a new, operative CDP or other form of Coastal Act authorization. Overall, SOC ranks 3rd on our list of worst-performing stocks. While we acknowledge the potential of SOC, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than SOC and that has 10,000x upside potential, check out our report about this cheapest AI stock. READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Court backs California Coastal Commission in fight over offshore oil operation
Just days after a Texas oil firm shocked California environmentalists and regulators by announcing the resumption of offshore oil production along the Santa Barbara County coast, a court has ordered the company to cease further construction or repairs until they obtain official approvals. For months, Sable Offshore Corp. has denied the California Coastal Commission's authority to oversee and approve upgrades to a network of oil pipelines that were shuttered after a major 2015 spill. The company argues that it doesn't need any new permits because it is only repairing and maintaining existing pipelines — as opposed to constructing a new line — meaning the Coastal Commission doesn't have a say in the matter. Sable sued the commission in February, claiming overreach of its authority. But on Wednesday, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle sided with the Coastal Commission and ordered Sable to abide by a preliminary injunction, upholding a cease and desist order commissioners issued in April. That action requires Sable to stop any further coastal work until the company obtains necessary permits from the Coastal Commission or the ongoing lawsuit is settled. "The Commission has presented credible evidence of violation of the Coastal Act," Anderle wrote in his ruling. Landscape grading and other pipeline work Sable performed "fall squarely within the definition of 'development' in the Coastal Act," he found. Read more: Under Trump, Texas firm pushes to restart Santa Barbara oil drilling. Is it skirting California laws? Sable insists that it is still operating within original permits from the 1980s. The commission disagrees however, and has ordered the company to seek new permits. 'It's a significant win not only for the Coastal Commission, but for the environment, for the state, for the people and, frankly, the rule of law," said Alex Helperin, assistant chief counsel for the Coastal Commission. 'We've never seen someone just completely ignore one of our orders before. ... This is unprecedented for us and [the judge's ruling is] a really important indication of the rule of law and the idea that our orders have to be taken seriously.' Although commission officials have hailed the judge's decision as a victory, it remains unclear how it will impact the oil operation. Sable has already finished much —if not all — of the work commissioners have protested. Still, Sable officials say they plan to appeal the judge's ruling. "We look forward to overturning today's decision, though it has no bearing on Sable's plans to recommence oil sales by July," read a statement from Steve Rusch, Sable's vice president of environmental and governmental affairs. "Sable will continue to aggressively defend our vested rights to pursue low carbon California oil and natural gas sorely needed to stabilize supply and lower consumer gasoline prices.' In April, the California Coastal Commission found that Sable had repeatedly violated the Coastal Act by repairing and upgrading oil pipelines without necessary permits or approvals. The company was fined $18 million, issued a cease and desist order and directed to restore areas that saw environmental damage. Sable has ignored those findings, and filed the lawsuit against the the commission. The preliminary injunction issued Wednesday doesn't resolve that case, but may be an indication of how the court may lean in a final decision — which is likely still months, if not years, away. Read more: Offshore oil operation near Santa Barbara resumes production after 10 years Sable outraged environmentalists and officials last week when it announced that it had resumed oil production at one of its offshore platforms — located in federal waters — at a rate of about 6,000 barrels a day, with plans to quickly increase extraction. The company said the oil is being sent to the onshore Las Flores Canyon processing facility for storage, but was clear that full use of the onshore pipelines had yet to begin. But among those who were taken aback by the announcement was Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis, who serves as chair of the California State Lands Commission and has oversight of offshore oil pipelines. Sable was required to update the State Lands Commission on any oil flow and failed to do so, she said. "Sable's failure to clearly and timely communicate these activities to the commission undermines trust of Sable's motives, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the significant concerns held by many regarding the resumption of activities, and raises serious questions about Sable's willingness to be a transparent operator," Kounalakis wrote in a May 23 letter to Sable that was reviewed by The Times. Kounalakis also accused the company of misleading the public. She said that lands commission staff told her that the new oil flows were the result of well-testing procedures required by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement prior to restart. "These activities do not constitute a resumption of commercial production or a full restart ... Characterizing testing activities as a restart of operations is not only misleading but also highly inappropriate — particularly given that Sable has not obtained the necessary regulatory approvals to fully resume operations," she wrote. She said that the company needs to resolve all pending legal challenges and regulatory requirements before any attempt to fully restart commercial operations in order to remain in compliance with its offshore pipeline leases. Sheri Pemberton, a spokesperson for the commission, said Sable has not yet responded to the lieutenant governor's letter. Sable representatives did not respond to questions about the letter or the concerns raised by the State Lands Commission chair. Environmental activists argued that the judge's ruling and Kounalakis' letter further demonstrate that Sable cannot be trusted to safely run an operation that previously failed. 'This just shows, again, that this is not a company we can trust to follow the law in California or responsibly operate equipment that already caused one of the worst spills in our state history," said Alex Katz, the executive director of the Environmental Defense Center. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Court backs California Coastal Commission in fight over offshore oil operation
Just days after a Texas oil firm shocked California environmentalists and regulators by announcing the resumption of offshore oil production along the Santa Barbara County coast, a court has ordered the company to cease further construction or repairs until they obtain official approvals. For months, Sable Offshore Corp. has denied the California Coastal Commission's authority to oversee and approve upgrades to a network of oil pipelines that were shuttered after a major 2015 spill. The company argues that it doesn't need any new permits because it is only repairing and maintaining existing pipelines — as opposed to constructing a new line — meaning the Coastal Commission doesn't have a say in the matter. Sable sued the commission in February, claiming overreach of its authority. But on Wednesday, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle sided with the Coastal Commission and ordered Sable to abide by a preliminary injunction, upholding a cease and desist order commissioners issued in April. That action requires Sable to stop any further coastal work until the company obtains necessary permits from the Coastal Commission or the ongoing lawsuit is settled. 'The Commission has presented credible evidence of violation of the Coastal Act,' Anderle wrote in his ruling. Landscape grading and other pipeline work Sable performed 'fall squarely within the definition of 'development' in the Coastal Act,' he found. Sable insists that it is still operating within original permits from the 1980s. The commission disagrees however, and has ordered the company to seek new permits. 'It's a significant win not only for the Coastal Commission, but for the environment, for the state, for the people and, frankly, the rule of law,' said Alex Helperin, assistant chief counsel for the Coastal Commission. 'We've never seen someone just completely ignore one of our orders before. ... This is unprecedented for us and [the judge's ruling is] a really important indication of the rule of law and the idea that our orders have to be taken seriously.' Although commission officials have hailed the judge's decision as a victory, it remains unclear how it will impact the oil operation. Sable has already finished much —if not all — of the work commissioners have protested. Still, Sable officials say they plan to appeal the judge's ruling. 'We look forward to overturning today's decision, though it has no bearing on Sable's plans to recommence oil sales by July,' read a statement from Steve Rusch, Sable's vice president of environmental and governmental affairs. 'Sable will continue to aggressively defend our vested rights to pursue low carbon California oil and natural gas sorely needed to stabilize supply and lower consumer gasoline prices.' In April, the California Coastal Commission found that Sable had repeatedly violated the Coastal Act by repairing and upgrading oil pipelines without necessary permits or approvals. The company was fined $18 million, issued a cease and desist order and directed to restore areas that saw environmental damage. Sable has ignored those findings, and filed the lawsuit against the the commission. The preliminary injunction issued Wednesday doesn't resolve that case, but may be an indication of how the court may lean in a final decision — which is likely still months, if not years, away. Sable outraged environmentalists and officials last week when it announced that it had resumed oil production at one of its offshore platforms — located in federal waters — at a rate of about 6,000 barrels a day, with plans to quickly increase extraction. The company said the oil is being sent to the onshore Las Flores Canyon processing facility for storage, but was clear that full use of the onshore pipelines had yet to begin. But among those who were taken aback by the announcement was Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis, who serves as chair of the California State Lands Commission and has oversight of offshore oil pipelines. Sable was required to update the State Lands Commission on any oil flow and failed to do so, she said. 'Sable's failure to clearly and timely communicate these activities to the commission undermines trust of Sable's motives, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the significant concerns held by many regarding the resumption of activities, and raises serious questions about Sable's willingness to be a transparent operator,' Kounalakis wrote in a May 23 letter to Sable that was reviewed by The Times. Kounalakis also accused the company of misleading the public. She said that lands commission staff told her that the new oil flows were the result of well-testing procedures required by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement prior to restart. 'These activities do not constitute a resumption of commercial production or a full restart ... Characterizing testing activities as a restart of operations is not only misleading but also highly inappropriate — particularly given that Sable has not obtained the necessary regulatory approvals to fully resume operations,' she wrote. She said that the company needs to resolve all pending legal challenges and regulatory requirements before any attempt to fully restart commercial operations in order to remain in compliance with its offshore pipeline leases. Sheri Pemberton, a spokesperson for the commission, said Sable has not yet responded to the lieutenant governor's letter. Sable representatives did not respond to questions about the letter or the concerns raised by the State Lands Commission chair. Environmental activists argued that the judge's ruling and Kounalakis' letter further demonstrate that Sable cannot be trusted to safely run an operation that previously failed. 'This just shows, again, that this is not a company we can trust to follow the law in California or responsibly operate equipment that already caused one of the worst spills in our state history,' said Alex Katz, the executive director of the Environmental Defense Center.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
A Luxury California Hotel Faces Daily Fines Over $11,000 for Privatizing Public Beach Near Resort
Hotel Laguna was accused of blocking public beach access without the required coastal development permit California Coastal Commission ordered the hotel to remove unauthorized sand berms and warning signs The hotel faces a $11,250 daily fine if the barricades and signage aren't removed by May 23A popular California hotel is getting reprimanded by state officials for setting up barricades around a beachfront for its guests. According to a letter obtained by PEOPLE, from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) to Hotel Laguna in Laguna Beach, Calif., the violation is described as 'construction of a sand berm and installation of signage within the coastal zone without a requisite coastal development permit,' or CDP. In the letter that was issued on May 8, the CCC outlines that the 'berms,' or raised strips of land, violate the 1976 Coastal Act, which the commission is powered to enforce. The legislation was enacted as a means to protect the 1,000-mile California coastline in an effort to 'manage conservation and development of coastal resources.' By cutting off a section of the public beach, the hotel is hindering the CCC from its duty of providing 'maximum public access to the coast,' the letter says. The CCC has requested that the hotel remove the berms and signage that 'unlawfully discourage public access to public trust lands seaward and down coast' that have not been authorized by an approved CDP. PEOPLE reached out to Hotel Laguna and did not receive an immediate response. This is also apparently not the first time Hotel Laguna has received a warning for violating property laws to keep out public visitors. According to the alleged past violations and discussions of resolutions outlined in the latest letter, Hotel Laguna has been notified on three separate occasions by the CCC enforcement staff. Allegedly, each of those violations has been responded to via written communication or an in-person discussion with the hotel's owner Michael Kluchin, and the hotel's counsel, Sherman Stacey, agreeing not to put up obstructions to the public. Following an alleged meeting on Nov. 21, 2024, between the Commission and Kluchin and Stacey, the CCC provided an example of the signage that was permitted by Hotel Laguna. However, as stated in the letter provided, the current signage 'does not resemble or have the intended effect of the example provided by Commission enforcement staff.' The Commission also alleges that its staff hasn't received a CDP application for the current signage or sand berm being used. As outlined in the notice, Hotel Laguna has until May 23 to provide photographic evidence that the signage and berms have been removed, or it will have a daily fine amounting to $11,250. According to its website, Hotel Laguna claims to be the first hotel in over 125 years to be located on the famous Orange County beach along the Pacific Coast Highway. Read the original article on People
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Yahoo
‘Shame on you': California hotel under fire for attempting to privatize beach
A historic hotel in the upscale coastal community of Laguna Beach is facing scrutiny for attempting to create a private beach area for its guests in apparent violation of California state law. Hotel Laguna, a landmark along the Pacific Coast Highway for over a century, is accused of violating California's long-standing Coastal Act by constructing a sand berm and placing signage and lounge chairs on a public stretch of sand, SFGATE reported Wednesday. Social media platforms have been abuzz with images and videos in recent weeks showing a raised sand barrier to protect the protected area, groomed and furnished with lounge chairs bearing the hotel's name. One video allegedly showed hotel staff asking members of the public to leave the cordoned-off area. Andrew Willis, enforcement staff counsel for the California Coastal Commission, told SFGATE that the agency has received numerous complaints about the situation. The commission says Hotel Laguna's efforts are a clear violation of the California Coastal Act, a 1976 law safeguarding public access to the state's beaches. In a letter of violation sent to the hotel on May 8, the commission stated that the berm and signage 'unlawfully discourage public access to public trust lands,' SFGATE reported. Although some sections of California's beaches and coastal bluffs are privately owned, the state retains ownership of all land seaward of the mean high tide line. Under the California Coastal Act, the public has the right to access the wet sand, meaning property owners cannot legally block access to the shoreline, even if they own the adjacent dry sand. The backlash has spilled onto the hotel's Instagram page, where numerous commenters have voiced their disapproval on older posts. Among them: 'Shame on you for stealing public resources.' 'Y'all don't own any part of the California beach.' 'The richies in OC always act like the rules don't apply to them.' 'Stop calling dibs on what's not yours.' Hotel Laguna did not respond to SFGATE's request for comment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
